We don't. We don't have the obligation to feed them, keep them safe or shelter any of them. Stop breeding them and consume the rest of the livestock. Until we can address our own society, perfect and figure out how to live life in a productive, controlled fashion, without them being integrated as part of our own collapsing welfare, perhaps then we could focus on another animals welfare but not before our own.

So really there is no reason why we should stop meat production in the current state of the world, correct? As it is now, they live in a system that benefits them in terms of the survival of their species, and that benefits us in terms of productivity. A system where they have use of us, and we have use of them.

People need to understand how trivial a intrinsic sensation such as taste is, what a animal would have to go through in order for you to experience a simple, short lived sensation is obviously not worth it.

So really there is no reason why we should stop meat production in the current state of the world, correct? As it is now, they live in a system that benefits them in terms of the survival of their species, and that benefits us in terms of productivity. A system where they have use of us, and we have use of them.

Edited:

People always say you should enjoy the little things in life.

You think the conditions of a factory farm are a benefit to them? Even if they do 'survive' this doesn't make their existence very positive, do you think a life encumbered with suffering and discomforts is a life worth living? This reminds me of the arguments slave owners would claim that their slaves are better off working for them because they supply them with food and water, a sustainable life, with no care for their current state of mind or condition, which is what really matters.

Creating a new life is serious shit, to create something just for your own use with very little regard to its welfare(recent progress shows more regard to its welfare, though), It is a huge risk with some other creature.

Just put yourself in a position of a farmed creature with some 'alien' creature with superior power and intelligence, what do you think? (I know this is a bad tricky comparison)

"People always say you should enjoy the little things in life." Not if it comes at the harm of something else.

You think the conditions of a factory farm are a benefit to them? Even if they do 'survive' this doesn't make their existence very positive, do you think a life encumbered with suffering and discomforts is a life worth living? This reminds me of the arguments slave owners would claim that their slaves are better off working for them because they supply them with food and water, a sustainable life, with no care for their current state of mind or condition, which is what really matters.

I think their current position is better. We are actively working to reduce inhumane living standards for animals before slaughter, and despite using them for slaughter they are still given a controlled life before that. I don't think it's comparable to slaves, because humans have a different level of sentience. A human knows the situation it is in, and even if living with good standards it can still dislike living in captivity. Animals do not worry in the same way as humans.

Creating a new life is serious shit, to create something just for your own use with very little regard to its welfare(recent progress shows more regard to its welfare, though), It is a huge risk with some other creature.

Well the alternatives are sparse. What the fuck do we do with the animals if we aren't supposed to eat them anymore? There is absolutely no reason at all to stop eating animals until we know exactly what we would do with all the animals if we did not raise them to be eaten. I will not even consider the idea of not using them for slaughter unless you can provide a reasonable solution as to what should be done with them if we do not eat them.

Just put yourself in a position of a farmed creature with some 'alien' creature with superior power and intelligence, what do you think? (I know this is a bad tricky comparison)

We have human level intelligence and sentience, therefor being in the same situation of animals would be greatly interpreted by humans. If animals had human level intelligence and sentience, they would have human level rights.

I guess I actually would not feel terrible if we actually were living in the Matrix though, and I'm sure some people would prefer it to reality.

"People always say you should enjoy the little things in life." Not if it comes at the harm of something else.

I don't think it comes of the harm of something else. Because there is no reasonable alternative to the lives they live right now. What we have is making the best out of the situation, the end justify the means. The continued survival of their species and controlled lifespans in safety, in return for food.

I personally think that cutting meat completely out of your diet can't be the best thing for you, but significantly cutting back meat consumption should definitely be done.

As for the reasons why people are vegetarians? I don't really care why someone does it.

I can respect the reasoning behind not wanting to for health reasons, and somewhat for economic reasons (like, the amount of grain that it takes to feed all the cattle could feed everyone for loadsa time, transportation/pollution, etc), but I feel like the few people that do it like that will never make a difference.
The reason I find silly: "We shouldn't eat the cute little *insert animal here*". That may be someone's reason, but I just think it's really a shit reason to be a vegetarian.
Take, for instance, the chicken. Last I heard, they only exist to become food in one form or another. There are no wild chickens, their sole purpose now is for consumption/making more chikens to consume/eggs/etc.

So really there is no reason why we should stop meat production in the current state of the world, correct? As it is now, they live in a system that benefits them in terms of the survival of their species, and that benefits us in terms of productivity. A system where they have use of us, and we have use of them.

I don't view the need for any species to survive particually very credible, it doesn't sound like we are doing cows any huge favour in that context. If i had to explain how i felt about it, it would be in too deep correlation of my views regarding life perception, where to harm is to create as a brief terminology. Further, people can't accept the idea of something not existing they always think existance is better than non existance and won't let things die gracefully (emotional attachments to things, needs, Windows XP, life etc.).
The system to me seems provocatively stimulated, manipulatively exhausted, painfully plenty and will be dragged along with humanity until the very end of our own existance.
I don't want meat production at all. You take an animal and hold the responsibility for it to live you are looking after its welfare within the limits of our own welfare. Why do we 300x grain a cow and 300x gallons of water for 2 years of a cows maximum 20 year life span if we know better alternatives. We are creating the animal to be welfaired. Let us stop call 020 0402485 and do something about it now!

I was just merely stating if it was our intention to do the best for the species then we wouldn't put them in the position they are now. We would let em' die naturally like the rest at the expense of something that you may object to, that we're acquiring out of it. Just unforunate that humanity persists in living with this approach. Above all the facts have been stated and i don't know what else to say on the subject.

Simski "because humans have a different level of sentience. A human knows the situation it is in, and even if living with good standards it can still dislike living in captivity. Animals do not worry in the same way as humans."

How can you be sure that a animal, caged tightly, is not upset with that condition, it is a risk in my opinion that you are causing harm, when you could so easily avoid the risk.

Simski "We have human level intelligence and sentience, therefor being in the same situation of animals would be greatly interpreted by humans. If animals had human level intelligence and sentience, they would have human level rights."

I don't see how intelligence is relevant, whether a creature is rolling around in the mud or reading shakespear, i don't see the relevance, we treat retards, humans with inferior intelligence with dignity don't we?

I personally don't eat meat and I consume dairy rarely when it makes social situations more convienient. I try not to bring it up or make a big deal out of it with people because that seems very douchey, but people bring it up with me more than I do with them (You could say they shove their meat eating down my throat in some sense).

However it does have potential to be healthier, but if you plain cut out meat you're not going to improve too much if you eat the same unhealthy shit that just excludes meat.

I could also go off about inhumane factory farms, but I don't know a whole lot about it besides obvious things most people know about. The only thing I can reasonably say in my position is that animals shouldn't be kept in cages or have chemical/hormone intake to speed up the aging process, but like I said I don't know a whole lot about so I can't say much.

My auntie has a cat that has been conditioned indoors. It fell out of a window one evening and to the sound of a cat in severe distress, shaken and wide-eyed, it's fear for the unkown really put this into perspective for me. We are talking about that caged dog who doesn't leave it's cage. I think what we can learn here is that like any animal they can recognize its comforts and respond in a natural manner (move away from the burning light) and its pretty scary to think having denied its sense of comfort, hunger, favour not to be in pain, wants and affection we are causing it harm in that effect.

I don't view the need for any species to survive particually very credible, it doesn't sound like we are doing cows any huge favour in that context. If i had to explain how i felt about it, it would be in too deep correlation of my views regarding life perception, where to harm is to create as a brief terminology. Further, people can't accept the idea of something not existing they always think existance is better than non existance and won't let things die gracefully (emotional attachments to things, needs, Windows XP, life etc.).
The system to me seems provocatively stimulated, manipulatively exhausted, painfully plenty and will be dragged along with humanity until the very end of our own existance.
I don't want meat production at all. You take an animal and hold the responsibility for it to live you are looking after its welfare within the limits of our own welfare. Why do we 300x grain a cow and 300x gallons of water for 2 years of a cows maximum 20 year life span if we know better alternatives. We are creating the animal to be welfaired. Let us stop call 020 0402485 and do something about it now!

I guess it all comes down to an opinion whether it's more humane to continue their existence in return for food or if it's more humane to just let them go extinct by natural causes so we don't have to waste food that we could use for ourselves.

I was just merely stating if it was our intention to do the best for the species then we wouldn't put them in the position they are now. We would let em' die naturally like the rest at the expense of something that you may object to, that we're acquiring out of it. Just unforunate that humanity persists in living with this approach. Above all the facts have been stated and i don't know what else to say on the subject.

Opinions will remain opinions. Personally I'm more for the continued existence of their species in the current system we have rather than to let them all die out. There's too many complications involved in letting them all die out.

How can you be sure that a animal, caged tightly, is not upset with that condition, it is a risk in my opinion that you are causing harm, when you could so easily avoid the risk.

I do not in any way promote the unethical treatment of animals before or when they are sent to slaughter, I do as always prefer humane treatment and a death that is quick and with as little suffering as possible. Furthermore, I could not in any way EASILY avoid the risk. There are a lot of complications involved in the seized production of meat, and a few people going vegetarian is a few people spitting in the ocean.

I don't see how intelligence is relevant, whether a creature is rolling around in the mud or reading shakespear, i don't see the relevance, we treat retards, humans with inferior intelligence with dignity don't we?

Well we treat other humans like we would treat ourselves in the same situation. We naturally have a higher regard for our own species. Partly because they can still have human level intelligence or sentience, and partly because there are other humans that raise and care for them so harming them would be to impose on those peoples wellbeing.

Well we treat other humans like we would treat ourselves in the same situation. We naturally have a higher regard for our own species. Partly because they can still have human level intelligence or sentience, and partly because there are other humans that raise and care for them so harming them would be to impose on those peoples wellbeing.

I know we have a higher regard "naturally" for our own species but can't you use your intelligence to see past that? Explain the relevance of intelligence, explain this sentience thing.
If you are talking about humans being more aware i don't see that as a big deal, If dog broke its leg and a human broke its leg, the human could understand that a bone broke beneath his skin and what he has to do to fix it, the dog may not be aware of what the fuck is going on but they both are feeling the same intense negative sensation.

I do not in any way promote the unethical treatment of animals before or when they are sent to slaughter, I do as always prefer humane treatment and a death that is quick and with as little suffering as possible. Furthermore, I could not in any way EASILY avoid the risk. There are a lot of complications involved in the seized production of meat, and a few people going vegetarian is a few people spitting in the ocean.

Well your perception of unethical is way different then mine obviously, as I see factory farms of being obviously unethical, which you support if you buy products from them, assuming you do. I don't see why you think vegetarianism makes no difference what so ever. According to http://www.vegetariantimes.com/featu..._editorial/667
There are 7.3 Million Americans who are vegetarians, and 22.8 million Americans who follow a inclined diet, do you really think are has no effect at all, I mean we can do the math if we need to, just figure out how many vegetarians it takes to prevent one cow from being brought into that condition, maybe my understanding of economics is lacking but if you decrease the demand the supply should eventually decrease, even if it was not I would not still boycott them because I think they are wrong.

If you are talking about humans being more aware i don't see that as a big deal, If dog broke its leg and a human broke its leg, the human could understand that a bone broke beneath his skin and what he has to do to fix it, the dog may not be aware of what the fuck is going on but they both are feeling the same intense negative sensation.

This isn't just a matter of physical suffering, but mental. An animal don't feel as bad as a human having its life controlled. It doesn't crave freedom to be happy, it just craves a safe life, food, and without complete isolation. It doesn't have the same quality standards as humans to remain happy.

I'm firstly and foremost, completely non-spiritual. I don't believe in anything paranormal, not god, not an afterlife, not souls, not destiny, not ghosts, not even luck.
My morals are mostly based on Epicureanism and general logical conclusions that I've made.

I don't believe life has any true purpose, I don't believe anything exists for a reason, I believe that death is just nonexistence without consciousness. I am however not a nihilist, because I believe that we only have only life and the best reason to not die is because you enjoy living. We should treat others well, not because we will be punished by god or the afterlife, but because we should only expect to be treated well by others if we treat them well in return.

People need to understand how trivial a intrinsic sensation such as taste is, what a animal would have to go through in order for you to experience a simple, short lived sensation is obviously not worth it. Do not eat for taste, eat for relief of hunger, it is less of a risk.

I'm sorry, but anyone living in a first world country is going to eat for taste, hunger is only a threat to homeless people, and even than there's damn free food centers all over the place in major cities.

Also, risk of what? Being happy? If we all ate solely for relief of hunger we would be eating tasteless bread packed full of vitamins and other shit we need to survive, life would be fucking miserable.

Well your perception of unethical is way different then mine obviously, as I see factory farms of being obviously unethical, which you support if you buy products from them, assuming you do. I don't see why you think vegetarianism makes no difference what so ever. According to http://www.vegetariantimes.com/featu..._editorial/667
There are 7.3 Million Americans who are vegetarians, and 22.8 million Americans who follow a inclined diet, do you really think are has no effect at all, I mean we can do the math if we need to, just figure out how many vegetarians it takes to prevent one cow from being brought into that condition, maybe my understanding of economics is lacking but if you decrease the demand the supply should eventually decrease, even if it was not I would not still boycott them because I think they are wrong.

Spoiler alert: They mass produce meat, have you ever been in a grocery store before, there's a shit load of meat there and not all of it sells. They don't look the pitiful amount of Vegetarians in the US (only like 1% of the population) and say cut meat production back.. by 1%!

This isn't just a matter of physical suffering, but mental. An animal don't feel as bad as a human having its life controlled. It doesn't crave freedom to be happy, it just craves a safe life, food, and without complete isolation. It doesn't have the same quality standards as humans to remain happy.

I think we've gotten off topic, but as i said most social sentient creatures hate being caged or confined.

I'm firstly and foremost, completely non-spiritual. I don't believe in anything paranormal, not god, not an afterlife, not souls, not destiny, not ghosts, not even luck.
My morals are mostly based on Epicureanism and general logical conclusions that I've made.

I don't believe life has any true purpose, I don't believe anything exists for a reason, I believe that death is just nonexistence without consciousness. I am however not a nihilist, because I believe that we only have only life and the best reason to not die is because you enjoy living. We should treat others well, not because we will be punished by god or the afterlife, but because we should only expect to be treated well by others if we treat them well in return.

How can you claim to be an Epicurean (i.e. a hedonist) when you fail to account for animal suffering in your axiology? There's something deeply contradictory in your worldview. Hedonism is not a speciesist doctrine. While I'd agree with the statement that animals are probably capable of feeling a lesser degree of suffering than humans, it doesn't stop the fact that the abolition of meat consumption (if not abolition, a great reduction) would greatly improve the net hedonic gain in the world. Meat consumption simply doesn't provide more pleasure than suffering (hedonic consequentialism is not biased to humans).

I believe that we as humans are built to ingest both meat and plant products. Ethically, we have made the consumption of meat to be associated with mass farms and animal suffering, this causes people to label meat as immoral. Ultimately as far as dietary and provisionary aspects go, the old farm life with a cow to each family was best. We are far away from what nature prescribes for us. At least then we were close.

I'm ok with vegans and vegetarians, as long as they don't push their beliefs down my throat. My sister's a vegan and she's one of the more level headed people I know, but she does make the occasional quip about how meat is disgusting and all that, I just ignore them though.

I do believe that raising animals in mass to be slaughtered is wrong though. It's much more reasonable to just stop the unneeded suffering. Meat is useful but we really don't need that much in our diets and it has tons of toxins in it. We can survive without meat.

How can you claim to be an Epicurean (i.e. a hedonist) when you fail to account for animal suffering in your axiology? There's something deeply contradictory in your worldview. Hedonism is not a speciesist doctrine. While I'd agree with the statement that animals are probably capable of feeling a lesser degree of suffering than humans, it doesn't stop the fact that the abolition of meat consumption (if not abolition, a great reduction) would greatly improve the net hedonic gain in the world. Meat consumption simply doesn't provide more pleasure than suffering (hedonic consequentialism is not biased to humans).

You keep talking about the abolition of the meat consumption, but you never provide any answers to how the flying fuck that would be possible. What the hell are we supposed to do with all the animals that would be more humane than what we do now? What I do, is make the best out of a bad situation. Rather, what I do is make the best out of the only situation we'll ever have. There won't be an end to it, ever. There is no reasonable alternative, what we have now is the only situation that works for their survival and our benefit.

Either way, there is nothing that says I have to think of every species as equal to mine as an Epicurean. Who the fuck but Buddhists and PETA does that anyway? I think of what's best for myself, and for humanity. I enjoy life, and I enjoy it with a nice big juicy steak and a glass of milk.

You keep talking about the abolition of the meat consumption, but you never provide any answers to how the flying fuck that would be possible. What the hell are we supposed to do with all the animals that would be more humane than what we do now? What I do, is make the best out of a bad situation. Rather, what I do is make the best out of the only situation we'll ever have. There won't be an end to it, ever. There is no reasonable alternative, what we have now is the only situation that works for their survival and our benefit.

Either way, there is nothing that says I have to think of every species as equal to mine as an Epicurean. Who the fuck but Buddhists and PETA does that anyway? I think of what's best for myself, and for humanity. I enjoy life, and I enjoy it with a nice big juicy steak and a glass of milk.

Well the process of removing meat consumption would not be instant, it would be a slow process over many years, we aren't going to release all the farmed animals or anything they would just stop breeding them slowly and slowly as the demand goes down and the price of grain and such goes up(because their demand increases with less meat consumption). So we wouldn't really do anything with the livestock, we would just stop breeding them for ourselves(because there would be no demand for them anymore).

And how would you convince people to stop buying meat? How would you stop people from producing meat? How would you compensate the people producing meat? How would you stop a growing demand for meat? How would you prevent drastic actions to get meat by the people wanting meat?

Edited:

There is not an inch of me that thinks that it would not end in absolute disaster.

And how would you convince people to stop buying meat? How would you stop people from producing meat? How would you compensate the people producing meat? How would you stop a growing demand for meat? How would you prevent drastic actions to get meat by the people wanting meat?

Edited:

There is not an inch of me that thinks that it would not end in absolute disaster.

Ethics and Economics would convince people to stop buying it, hopefully.. The real trick is stopping the parents from feeding their kids it in the first place, that is where the habit(addiction?) arises. The people producing meat would go out of business(why do we need to compensate). As i said to decrease the demand show them ethics and economics, prevent the habit from arising.

Well i never said anything about making meat illegal, i'd hope everyone would do it just out of empathy, but i'm not sure how to answer that.

Ethics and Economics would convince people to stop buying it, hopefully.. The real trick is stopping the parents from feeding their kids it in the first place, that is where the habit(addiction?) arises. The people producing meat would go out of business(why do we need to compensate). As i said to decrease the demand show them ethics and economics, prevent the habit from arising.

Well i never said anything about making meat illegal, i'd hope everyone would do it just out of empathy, but i'm not sure how to answer that.

Or we could, y'know, keep eating meat and find other means of creating the supply for our demand? Why should we have to cut something that has been part of our diets for most of our history out. Just because a small hardcore feel they can represent what the entirety of humanity must feel about the methods we use? People are aware that battery farming and the likes aren't ideal, but it's not like the alternatives are any better. Completely removing meat from our diets would just dull food down so much. Part of eating is the experience of taste, not just nutrition.

We should rather be looking into removing our requirements of animals for the growth of meat. More production friendly methods like lab-grown alternatives. The meat would never become sentient, it would never grow any recognition of suffering (shit, is there any evidence animals in the current system understand they are suffering? Because if there isn't, they aren't).

What a lot of hardcore vegetarians/ vegans make a mistake of doing is projecting themselves onto the animals, which just doesn't work as, shock horror! Animals aren't human and don't think or understand anything near to the capacity we do. The conditions we keep them in are getting steadily better, but that is pushing the price of meat up (thanks for that, we totally need that in this economic climate!). There will never be this ideal "frolicking in the fields" method of farming. But at the same time, using animals for meat isn't some kind of hell for the animal, they don't get slowly killed by some sadistic ass-holes who enjoy their pain. They are kept relatively well, fed properly, and diseases are usually eradicated as fast as humanly possible.

People aren't going to stop eating meat just because you can dig up some images and articles of the worst meat farming incidents.

Yeah i agree, that really isn't realistic. Vegetarian food is very accessible and cheap in a lot of situations, it is a growing trend and it may or may not become the norm. I'll get back to you if I can think of any answer to get the variety of humans in variety of cultures to join in on the idea, but I'll try my best to think of some ideas.

We should rather be looking into removing our requirements of animals for the growth of meat. More production friendly methods like lab-grown alternatives. The meat would never become sentient, it would never grow any recognition of suffering (shit, is there any evidence animals in the current system understand they are suffering? Because if there isn't, they aren't).

"More production friendly methods like lab-grown alternatives. The meat would never become sentient, it would never grow any recognition of suffering" < Good idea!

I could care less what they can comprehend, I know they can feel intrinsic discomforts such as I(maybe the sensation itself isn't EXACTLY the same but they are most likely both negative).
Do you have any evidence for your claims, I'm not just talking about factory farms in America. Diseases eradicated, such as the one recently in South Korea where they had to bury a quantity of pigs alive. I know it was necessary to keep it from spreading but if we weren't so caught up in the consumption of meat their shitty lives would of never came to be. Is there any evidence that they understand they are suffering, that is irrelevant if they are in constant negative mental states of discomfort of varying levels, that is suffering, they don't need to understand it, they just have to feel it to know it sucks.

Or we could, y'know, keep eating meat and find other means of creating the supply for our demand? Why should we have to cut something that has been part of our diets for most of our history out. Just because a small hardcore feel they can represent what the entirety of humanity must feel about the methods we use? People are aware that battery farming and the likes aren't ideal, but it's not like the alternatives are any better. Completely removing meat from our diets would just dull food down so much. Part of eating is the experience of taste, not just nutrition.

Taste is such a trivial sensation as i said, and even if you are a vegetarian you can still have your blue berry pies, this isn't a issue really. We should cut it out of our diets because it isn't necessary, it is not that good for us, makes sense to me economically, causes new lives, and with a new life always comes suffering. How would it dull down food?

using animals for meat isn't some kind of hell for the animal, they don't get slowly killed by some sadistic ass-holes who enjoy their pain. They are kept relatively well, fed properly, and diseases are usually eradicated as fast as humanly possible.

I do not know if there lives are living hell, I have not researched factory farming itself enough. I'll choose not to take the risk of causing a shit-filled life though. And that image was completely legitimate.

I mean go check out Walmarts suppliers Seaboard, or various others, they keep them in tiny cages they cut off their balls shortly after birth and their tails, it is so obvious they are in constant discomfort in their tiny cages. Oh but i wouldn't want to link this evidence though or i'd be finding scarce videos and images of these matters, yeah this one took me hours to find i was on page 108 on google.

That a side i'm sure there are farms which actually give two shits about their products welfare, I have no doubt of that, that is a much better option i would advocate you to buy from, go look up nice local farms and such, go visit them even to ensure their validity.

Why should we have to cut something that has been part of our diets for most of our history out?

Anything can be part of a diet and we know this. You don't use culture as a base of fact. If you want to talk about history, even the most primitive human beings had some reverence or some sort of appreciation for the taking. They kind of knew what they were taking when they killed an animal. They understood to some depth that their was something to be a little moody about. We have lost that appreciation and suddenly now it becomes our sacrificial right to kill them by your opinion.

Just because a small hardcore feel they can represent what the entirety of humanity must feel about the methods we use

India holds more vegetarians than the world combined with an estimate of 400 million. You represent something on a set of principles not numbers and you also don't use majority as a preference that is correct.

What a lot of hardcore vegetarians/ vegans make a mistake of doing is projecting themselves onto the animals, which just doesn't work as, shock horror!

We are decendence of animals so i don't understand where your getting at here. We both have characteristics such like nervous systems, capabilities to learn, vital organs with comparative functions, decision making. entrust social groups, may i go on. We relate to them on these terms and take them into consideration. Again, it's this stupid intellegence thing. I don't give a damn about how intellegent they are or we are...it's all questionable in itself. We are raising and killing. Raising and Killing. Take the discomfort of dying and use it as a profit margin; 'the more perishing the higher our capital gain'.

criticizable so why bother putting them in an argument. encourages fact dumping and requires substancial research on both sides to get a definitive answer. Conditions vary in different countries on a broad spectrum. Where our nation could be getting better another could be getting worse and so forth we don't actually know. If like i said in another post, you take an animal and hold the responsibility for it to live you are looking after its welfare within the limits of our own welfare. Now we don't even need an economic downfall to witness the fate of what can just as likely happen in a simple bad market. If your living welfare starts getting complicated and cuts are having to be made, who's welfare is the first to be effected by that cut?

'...steadily getting better' so i guess there is a recognized incentive to do the best for the animal somewhere but i don't believe you are looking in the right direction

[edit] '...understanding capacity' - but miss capacity to feel as the point here

pushing the price of meat up (thanks for that, we totally need that in this economic climate)

Non-meat produce is cheaper. Organisations, governments, marketing, all can be pushed, voted and pressured forward towards a publics interest. Unfortunately, it looks like your small group in favour for low cost meat wasn't a part of the representation of most human feelings, about the methods that you were using to obtain it. Maybe somewhere in there you can find a value that people cherish more then your value for money.

There will never be this ideal "frolicking in the fields" method of farming.

so fucking stop it.

To sum up, if i am going to raise a family and kill them at some point in their short lived future, just before i inbred them and i kept doing this for years and years. Using the knowledge we've developed from our own concious experiences, we can work out it isn't really going well for that family is it. We instigate to stop the sufferage of a repetitive dying process (Many die in what can die once). We know personally how exposed to such to the extent of how miserable life can seriously get and there are many complex circumstancial, physical disablements, mental states that leads us to a discomfortable life. That we would rather it not happen at all or let the chance of it happening at all.

Anyone else hate this kind of response with an absolute burning passion? Just because it's heavily contested, moreso than other schools, it doesn't mean it's subjective. It's not fucking subjective, or at least you can't say it is without a fucking immense amount of philosophical argument (because by saying it's subjective, you're essentially disagreeing with 95% of ethicists).

You keep talking about the abolition of the meat consumption, but you never provide any answers to how the flying fuck that would be possible. What the hell are we supposed to do with all the animals that would be more humane than what we do now? What I do, is make the best out of a bad situation. Rather, what I do is make the best out of the only situation we'll ever have. There won't be an end to it, ever. There is no reasonable alternative, what we have now is the only situation that works for their survival and our benefit.

Either way, there is nothing that says I have to think of every species as equal to mine as an Epicurean. Who the fuck but Buddhists and PETA does that anyway? I think of what's best for myself, and for humanity. I enjoy life, and I enjoy it with a nice big juicy steak and a glass of milk.

Reduction is what you would be realistically looking for and you know the point is just to give people a reason to give a damn. Some statement, some image, more importantly some logic that'll make them for a moment think their life has a price to exist, it is not in favour of something else. It's not just to do with what you eat but it becomes a decisive realism on what we do in expense of achieving this enjoyment that we take for granted. You enjoy life because you are in a position to enjoy it. Enjoyment is highly subjective to yourself. I have my own sensibilities and you have your own sensibilities and anyone elses besides mine is going to seem wrong, irritating and annoying rather than satisfying my needs for enjoyment. Secondly, you must know that society can't achieve anything under laws of freedom which is just another fancy term for being an uncontrollable nation.

How is there no reasonable alternative i do not know how you people come to this conclusion..